Bank of California v. American Fruit Growers, Inc., 27880.
Decision Date | 29 May 1940 |
Docket Number | 27880. |
Citation | 103 P.2d 27,4 Wn.2d 186 |
Parties | BANK OF CALIFORNIA v. AMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS, Inc., et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
On Rehearing September 7, 1940.
Department 1.
Action to recover money due on a note and damages for conversion of fruit by the Bank of California, N. A., against American Fruit Growers, Inc., Northwest Fruit Exchange, a corporation and others. From an adverse judgment, the named defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed with instructions.
Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; W. O. Parr, Judge.
Kerr, McCord & Carey, Stephen V. Carey, and J. L Collins, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Bogle Bogle & Gates, Ray Dumett, and Warren Brown, Jr., all of Seattle, and Crollard & O'Connor, of Wenatchee, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action for the purpose of recovering a sum of money due upon a promissory note signed by the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation as maker, and for recovery of damages from defendants because of their conversion of fruit covered by mortgages in favor of the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation which had been assigned to plaintiff as security for the payment of the note.
The pertinent portions of the complaint are:
That on or about the 19th day of April, 1938 the defendant Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation made, executed and delivered its certain promissory note * * * [A copy of the note payable on demand in the sum of $106,941.74 was here set out in the complaint]'
Paragraph IV alleged a balance due of $73,118.92.
Paragraph VI contained a description of the mortgages.
Paragraph IX contained an allegation relative to attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff demanded judgment against defendant Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation in the sum of $73,118.93, with interest and attorneys' fees. It asked that the remaining defendants be required to account to plaintiff for all mortgaged property sold and disposed of by them, and that plaintiff have judgment for all amounts found due and owing upon the accounting.
In a supplemental complaint plaintiff admitted certain additional payments on the note, which reduced the balance due to $65,521.30.
Defendants, other than the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation, demurred to the complaint upon the grounds (1) that several causes of action had been improperly united; (2) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against said defendants or either of them. The demurrers were overruled.
The answer of the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation admitted the making of the note and denied the other allegations of the complaint.
The answers of the American Fruit Growers, Inc., and Northwest Fruit Exchange admitted the making of the note, denied the alleged conversion of fruit, and set up affirmative defenses which it is unnecessary to mention.
The case, tried to a jury, resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation in the sum of $65,521.30, together with interest and attorneys' fees in the sum of $2750, and against the American Fruit Growers, Inc., and the Northwest Fruit Exchange in the sum of $65,521.30.
Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial was made and denied.
The court entered judgment upon the verdicts from which American Fruit Growers, Inc., and Northwest Fruit Exchange, a corporation, have appealed.
Appellants contend that under the provisions of Rem.Rev.Stat. § 296, respondent could not join the action of conversion with the action upon the promissory note.
By proper objections and motions appellants preserved their rights as against the pleadings.
There are two causes of action joined in the complaint against five defendants. One cause of action, that concerning the liability upon the promissory note, an action upon contract, is directed against Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation; the other, against all of the defendants, sounds in tort for conversion of the fruit which was mortgaged to Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation and the mortgages assigned to respondent as security for the payment of the note. May such causes of action be joined?
Rem.Rev.Stat. § 296, provides:
'The plaintiff may unite several causes of action in the same complaint, when they all arise out of,----
'1. Contract, express or implied; or, * * *
'8. The same transaction.
'But the causes of action so united must affect all the parties to the action, and not require different places of trial, and must be separately stated.'
All of the defendants were charged with conversion, but only one, the Columbia Agricultural Credit Corporation, was sued upon the promissory note. It is clear that an action upon the note could not have been maintained against appellants for the reason that they did not sign the note. Rem.Rev.Stat. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...of plaintiffs. Such was the condition of the statutes and the rules of pleading, practice and procedure when Bank of California v. American Fruit Growers, 4 Wash.2d 186, 103 P.2d 27, reached here in 1940. It was there held that an action on a note secured by a chattel mortgage, the foreclos......
-
Bank of California v. American Fruit Growers
...Exchange. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to those appellants on the ground of improper joinder of causes of action. 4 Wash. 2d 186, 103 P.2d 27. On September 13, 1940, acting on the remittitur from the Supreme Court, the Superior Court entered its judgment in dismissing the acti......
-
Robbins v. Wilson Creek State Bank, 27967.
... ... subject to demurrer. Bank of California v. American Fruit ... Growers, Inc., Wash., ... ...
-
Frank Coluccio Const. Co. v. Kitsap County Sewer Dist. No. 6, 34640
...the joinder of action statute RCW 4.36.150, and the rule does not purport to abrogate the statute. Bank of California v. American Fruit Growers, 1940, 4 Wash.2d 186, 193, 103 P.2d 27; Capital National Bank of Olympia v. Johns, 1932, 170 Wash. 250, 254, 16 P.2d 452, 453. The purpose of the r......